Not because the notion is necessarily a terrible idea, mind you. But because musicians and music labels seemed unlikely to be beneficiaries of Washington aid.

Today, however, the music business got one step closer to getting the bill passed: The House Judiciary Committee approved the legislation in a 21-9 vote. There’s a long way to go: If I remember my Schoolhouse Rock correctly, the bill has to get through a Senate committee, then the full House, the full Senate and then President Barack Obama’s desk before it becomes law.

The National Association of Broadcasters, which hits my inbox almost daily with a press release decrying the act and promising its ultimate failure, assures me that “nearly half the House of Representatives already opposes RIAA efforts to feather the nest of foreign record labels.” And that kind of invective may help them quash this thing.

But let me reiterate: I still think the best way to kill this, if you were so inclined, would be to start calling it the “Britney Bailout.”

Per my previous story, here’s the campaign I would run if I was the NAB: “Slap up an ad that shows Britney Spears driving with her kid on her lap or staggering around an MTV stage or cavorting with K-Fed, and run a simple tag line: “Britney wants more money. Tell Congress not to give her any.” But again, what do I know?

Oooh. Here’s that Schoolhouse Rock classic:

At a digital music panel in Nashville this week, executives from AT&T (T) and Comcast (CMCSA) created a furor by saying they were passing along warnings to customers that the RIAA says are illegally uploading music files onto the Internet.

Later, the companies tried to calm the outrage erupting in the blogosphere by harrumphing they weren’t cutting off Internet access to those people–or in the case of Cox (CXR), hardly ever cutting it off. AT&T said it wouldn’t cut off access without a court order.

So what is going on? For more than a year, the RIAA has been engaged in a major diplomatic effort to win over ISPs. “What we are trying to encourage ISPs to do is adopt some form of graduated response,” says Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman. “It is our position that people who are repeat offenders merit an account suspension or something like that.” He adds that any customer has a right to due process and should have the option to challenge the action if they think it is unjustified.

Read the rest of this post

Late last year, the music industry announced that it was going to stop suing music pirates because it had finally gotten Internet pipe companies to help it crack down on file “sharers.” One problem: None of the big cable or telco guys would fess up to joining the plan.

Now one of them finally has–in a very limited, toe-in-the-water, we’re-just-testing-this-out way. CNET:

“At a digital music conference in Nashville, Jim Cicconi, a senior executive for AT&T told the audience that the ISP has begun issuing takedown notices to people accused of pirating music by the Recording Industry Association of America, according to one music industry insider who was present….

Cicconi told attendees of the Leadership Music Digital Summit that the notices are part of a ‘trial.’ AT&T wants to test customer reaction, he said. Whether AT&T included any warnings that repeat offenders would see their service suspended or terminated is still unclear. Music industry sources said AT&T told managers at the top labels the trial letter would include strong language about the consequences of illegal conduct, but would stop short of mentioning service interruptions.”

Can’t really say that “strong language” is going to do much to help solve the music industry’s woes. But from the labels’ perspective, it’s better than nothing, which is what the cable and telco guys have traditionally done about file-sharing for the past decade or so.

But if you want to see what the pipe guys can do about file-sharing when properly motivated, keep your eye on what they do about TV and movie piracy.

Remember that the ISPs get zilch from the music business. But they spend billions a year for the right to show TV programs and movies. And they’re going to try very hard to “disincent” you from watching whatever you want, whenever you want, without paying them for that ability.

Now, Perrelli’s CV is impressive. He was counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton administration. But his cozy relationship with the RIAA makes his appointment a bit of an eyebrow-raiser. And the entertainment industry’s $7,669,442 in contributions to the Obama campaign certainly doesn’t help matters.

Writes News.com’s Declan McCullagh: “During [Perrelli's] confirmation hearing, it will be instructive to see if senators ask whether his zealous anti-file sharing advocacy can make him an objective civil servant–especially when these same politicians want the Justice Department to sue peer-to-peer pirates at taxpayer’s expense. (Then again, if that proposal becomes law, Perrelli’s surely the right man for the job.) It will also be instructive to see if this week’s news prompts some of the RIAA’s longtime adversaries to moderate their enthusiasm for Obama’s technology policies.”

Bad news, Internet music, movie and other content “sharers”: The content companies are trading their sue-’em-all strategy for one that leans on Internet service providers to help them fight their battles for them. This may ultimately be much more effective. Here’s how it will work, via The Wall Street Journal:

The [Recording Industry Association of America, the music industry's trade group] said it has hashed out preliminary agreements with major ISPs under which it will send an email to the provider when it finds a provider’s customers making music available online for others to take.

Depending on the agreement, the ISP will either forward the note to customers, or alert customers that they appear to be uploading music illegally, and ask them to stop. If the customers continue the file-sharing, they will get one or two more emails, perhaps accompanied by slower service from the provider. Finally, the ISP may cut off their access altogether.

The RIAA said it has agreements in principle with some ISPs, but declined to say which ones.”

The fact that the big labels are going to stop suing people who “share” their music via P2P services is the least interesting development here. That’s just the industry accepting that it lost a battle that ended years ago. In Q3 of this year, the volume of music swapped on via P2P increased 28 percent, says NPD.

More interesting is that Big Music thinks it has finally found an ally in the ISPs, who have traditionally been just fine with letting their subscribers swap all the music they wanted. It’s not clear what incentive they’ve offered to get the ISPs on board. And note that the WSJ doesn’t identify any ISPs that have actually signed on to this strategy. So this still may not be a done deal.

But the people who sell you Internet access–whether its the cable guys like Comcast (CMCSA) and Time Warner Cable (TWC), or telcos like Verizon (VZ) and AT&T (T)–have already shown a general inclination to help content owners fight piracy. Or at least help them fight particular kinds of particularly egregious piracy.

They’ve been doing so by trying to limit, in various ways, your ability to swap lots of files with other people. Some of these strategies have been clumsier than others.

Last year Comcast tried “throttling” the connections of broadband subscribers using some file-sharing software–a ham-handed approach (particularly the lying about it) that earned them a wrist-slap from the FCC.

But other companies have been more upfront about telling subs that they reserve the right to cut off file-sharers. A different approach that many are contemplating: simply charging heavy file-sharers a lot of money.

Do the ISPs really care about the sanctity of copyright? Doubtful. But they do care about the cost of moving lots of data around–and those costs are only going to increase as consumers start consuming more and more video over the Web.

And at least in the case of Hollywood, they do care about keeping content creators somewhat mollified, since all of the ISPs want to make money by selling, renting, or just offering up Hollywood’s movies and TV shows to subscribers.

So I’ve always understood why Comcast was standing up for the likes of Sony’s (SNE) movie studio. But why is Comcast (or its peers) going to start working on behalf of Sony’s music group? I’m all ears.

At the time, Napster had some 20 million users worldwide and was essentially the de-facto file-sharing standard. Had the RIAA labels agreed to the alliance, they might have turned peer-to-peer distribution into a new and powerful business model, one with low distribution and marketing costs and a fast developing user base. But they didn’t. They chose another route.

Big mistake. Along came Gnutella. And increased broadband penetration and cheaper storage. Along came Kazaa. And then came BitTorrent. And, well, look at the industry now.

Given such history, it’s difficult to look at the recording industry’s plan to have a monthly fee added to consumers’ internet-service bills and not shake your head in wonderment.

Portfolio.com reports that Edgar Bronfman Jr.’s Warner Music Group (TWX) has indeed hired veteran industry consultant Jim Griffin (no relation to Peter, right?) to quarterback a plan under which consumers pay an Internet-access surcharge of $5 a month for the collective right to freely share music. Those fees would be pooled and divvied up among artists and their labels.

“Ideally, music will feel free,” says Griffin. “Even if you pay a flat fee for it, at the moment you use it there are no financial considerations. It’s already been paid for.”

Ah- charge everyone for all music. So it is Monetization Without Representation. OK. But what gives the music industry the right to tax all broadband users because it suspects some of them might illegally share its content? And if the music industry deserves that right, then doesn’t the film industry deserve it as well? And the publishing industry? And any other industry that might benefit from such a tax?

As David Barrett, engineering manager for peer-to-peer networks at Web content-delivery giant Akamai (AKAM), notes Griffin’s plan is problematic. And desperate.

Said Barrett:, “It’s too late to charge people for what they’re already getting for free. This is just taxation of a basic, universal service that already exists, for the benefit a distant power that actively harasses the people being taxed without offering them any meaningful representation.”

At the time, Napster had some 20 million users worldwide and was essentially the de-facto file-sharing standard. Had the RIAA labels agreed to the alliance, they might have turned peer-to-peer distribution into a new and powerful business model, one with low distribution and marketing costs and a fast developing user base. But they didn’t. They chose another route.

Big mistake. Along came Gnutella. And increased broadband penetration and cheaper storage. Along came Kazaa. And then came BitTorrent. And, well, look at the industry now.

Given such history, it’s difficult to look at the recording industry’s plan to have a monthly fee added to consumers’ internet-service bills and not shake your head in wonderment.

Portfolio.com reports that Edgar Bronfman Jr.’s Warner Music Group (TWX) has indeed hired veteran industry consultant Jim Griffin (no relation to Peter, right?) to quarterback a plan under which consumers pay an Internet-access surcharge of $5 a month for the collective right to freely share music. Those fees would be pooled and divvied up among artists and their labels.

“Ideally, music will feel free,” says Griffin. “Even if you pay a flat fee for it, at the moment you use it there are no financial considerations. It’s already been paid for.”

Ah- charge everyone for all music. So it is Monetization Without Representation. OK. But what gives the music industry the right to tax all broadband users because it suspects some of them might illegally share its content? And if the music industry deserves that right, then doesn’t the film industry deserve it as well? And the publishing industry? And any other industry that might benefit from such a tax?

As David Barrett, engineering manager for peer-to-peer networks at Web content-delivery giant Akamai (AKAM), notes Griffin’s plan is problematic. And desperate.

Said Barrett:, “It’s too late to charge people for what they’re already getting for free. This is just taxation of a basic, universal service that already exists, for the benefit a distant power that actively harasses the people being taxed without offering them any meaningful representation.”

A bit of background: In 2006 the RIAA sued Pamela and Jeffrey Howell for copyright infringement, accusing the pair of “making copyrighted works available” over a peer-to-peer network. The RIAA had no evidence that the Howells ever transferred content to a third party. It did, however, have screen shots of their Kazaa account. And that was proof enough for the court to grant its motion for summary judgment against them. “It is no defense that a Kazaa user did not directly oversee the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material,” the judge wrote, noting that “the mere presence of copyrighted works in a shared folder is enough to trigger liability.”

So even though the RIAA couldn’t prove the Howells distributed files illegally, the mere fact that they owned a computer with a shared-files folder on it that contained copyrighted files “made available” over an Internet connection was enough to constitute infringement of the “distribution” rights under the Copyright Act.

Essentially, the Howells have been found criminally liable for what they might have done. Which is an unsettling thought in a Dick-ensian (Philip K.) sort of way. But not for the RIAA which, thanks to this ruling, no longer has to work quite so hard to provide proof of violation in these cases.

“Plaintiffs wish to establish two violations of copyright law when a person both downloads and uploads sound recordings via the Internet,” the Computer & Communications Industry Association and US Internet Industry Association wrote in an amicus brief filed in Elektra v. Barker, another RIAA “making available” case. “Proof of the download violation may be relatively straightforward when a plaintiff can establish that a recording has been copied to a person’s computer. Proof of a violation by uploading cannot, however, be established merely by showing the availability of files for potential uploading. A plaintiff must establish a connection to someone else’s actual download. That requires a plaintiff to establish a connection between an uploader and a corresponding downloader, to establish the facts of an actual transaction between the two. Although such proof may require investigation, a plaintiff should not be relieved of its burden. Since copyright holders may (and often do) seek statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed, see 17 U.S.C. §504(c)(2), without having to prove actual harm, for such remedies they should be required to furnish allegations and proof of actual violations.

“The remedies provide an adequate incentive for a proper investigation. Amici believe that plaintiffs want to invoke the concept of ‘making available’ instead of the statutory elements of a section 106(3) distribution because plaintiffs perceive that the investigations needed for proper allegations and proof of uploading liability (as contributory infringement liability for another’s download) are burdensome.”